Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member kwgoodwin
    Geek
    20 Mar '08 13:34
    I'm always surprised by the folks that can keep hundreds of active games. I have one opponent with 887 current games. Is there anyway to see who has the most?

    Has RHP ever thought of limiting the number of active games as too often those with 500+ games tend to time out rather than actually play?
  2. Standard member Smiffy
    SPS CLAN
    20 Mar '08 13:45
    Heng did have 1500 games going at one time ....Also galaxyshield is another who plays aload of games i think 500.....
  3. Standard member eagleeye222001
    Eye rival to Saurons
    20 Mar '08 15:12
    Originally posted by kwgoodwin
    .....Has RHP ever thought of limiting the number of active games as too often those with 500+ games tend to time out rather than actually play?
    There is no reason for RHP to limit the number of games as if you don't move within the agreed upon time period for the game then you (not RHP) is responsible for the loss.

    Why should RHP limit games? What problem is there and whose fault is it?
  4. Standard member kwgoodwin
    Geek
    20 Mar '08 15:19
    Originally posted by eagleeye222001
    Why should RHP limit games? What problem is there and whose fault is it?
    I just find it rather boring to play those that time out their games...
  5. 20 Mar '08 17:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by eagleeye222001
    There is no reason for RHP to limit the number of games as if you don't move within the agreed upon time period for the game then you (not RHP) is responsible for the loss.

    Why should RHP limit games? What problem is there and whose fault is it?
    I lost around 40 points because of that Heng guy. He was 1800 at the time when I got a piece up, and when he finally resigned, he was somewhere around 800, and I lost points eventhough I won.

    I think it is reasonable and even necessary for RHP to limit maximum games.
  6. 20 Mar '08 18:28
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    ...I lost points even though I won.
    That can only happen in your first 20 games. After that, you'll never drop points if you win.
  7. 20 Mar '08 18:32 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by DawgHaus
    That can only happen in your first 20 games. After that, you'll never drop points if you win.
    yes, but this still reveals a problem about no limitations on maximum games. rating system should be made as smooth as possible. in Heng's situation, hundreds of points were wasted, not only mine and not only provisional ones.
  8. 20 Mar '08 20:27
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    yes, but this still reveals a problem about no limitations on maximum games. rating system should be made as smooth as possible. in Heng's situation, hundreds of points were wasted, not only mine and not only provisional ones.
    I'm not following your argument.

    1) What's a "smooth" rating system? Why is it important that we have one? And how is the current system *not* smooth?

    2) How exactly are rating points "wasted"? They're relational measures, not quantities. If we gave everyone 10,000 rating points, would that be good? Not only would this deviate from typical OTB ranges, but the base ratings would then dwarf the relative differences and make the system harder to grasp. Even though the math and the predictive ability would still work fine.

    If you feel your rating doesn't currently reflect your true strength, play more games and soon it will.

    People's ratings differ from their "true" strength for many reasons. One of them is that he/she plays a very high number of games. If I played as many as Heng, my rating would probably be 1900-2000, which would also reflect the strength at which I'd be playing. If Quirine played far fewer, he'd be 2100+ eventually. But he doesn't. His rating reflects that.

    Clearly, you would have liked Heng's rating to be higher upon completion of your games. But it wasn't. How is that an indictment of the rating system?
  9. 20 Mar '08 21:56
    Originally posted by DawgHaus
    I'm not following your argument.

    1) What's a "smooth" rating system? Why is it important that we have one? And how is the current system *not* smooth?

    2) How exactly are rating points "wasted"? They're relational measures, not quantities. If we gave everyone 10,000 rating points, would that be good? Not only would this deviate from typical OTB ra ...[text shortened]... of your games. But it wasn't. How is that an indictment of the rating system?
    ok, I'm not certain if the term "wasted" was accurate.

    I think we are talking about different events. I'm not arguing that Player X should play a less number of concurrent games so that his/her rating would be more realistic, your post would apply perfectly to that situation. It's not the "player's strength", it's the "strength of play" that counts, and this is how it's supposed to be. I agree you in that.

    However, this is where "smooth rating system" comes in. I was referring to sudden drops of ratings due to a huge amount of time-out losses. What I meant by "smooth" is about the absence of this sort of sudden and sharp changes. In the example of Heng, his level of play was around 1700-1800 (that was what his rating was), and people did play against that level of play. I did too, and won one game, and drew another. However, in only one single day, his rating dropped to 800.

    my point is: people didn't actually play and win-lose-or draw against a 800 level of play, they did all those against a much higher level, and the rating system didn't reflect that. I guess this argument should be reasonable.
  10. 20 Mar '08 22:16
    I don't care one way or the other about a limit on the number of rated games, but please, don't limit the number of unrated set piece games.
  11. Standard member eagleeye222001
    Eye rival to Saurons
    21 Mar '08 07:52
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    ...my point is: people didn't actually play and win-lose-or draw against a 800 level of play, they did all those against a much higher level, and the rating system didn't reflect that. I guess this argument should be reasonable.
    Basically you think that the rating change from the result of a game should be based on your opponents rating right before the game starts and not when it ends, right?

    Let's pretend that we change the rating system to work as described above. What happens when I start a game against a 1600 but when I win, he/she is a 1800? Is it fair now that I only get points based on 1600 and not 1800?

    What if the endgame in question required me to play it like an 1800 to win the game?

    Which rating is more accurate? The rating from when the game started (could be months, almost a year) or the rating when the game ended?

    Again, the rating system is an ESTIMATE of a player's playing strength and it is not meant to dole out the exact number of rating points you truly deserve.

    The way you complain I would think your opponent in question was doing this on purpose.

    If I was losing a game against someone would I resign a bunch of games so that one person gets squat points? No, I think this an unreasonable theory.

    Limiting games is not the answer. Who you play and what time controls you agree to is. You not like opponents using their time? Do 1 day time controls with no timebank.

    Its your choice who you play or who you possibly play.
  12. Standard member boarman
    member 001
    21 Mar '08 07:55
    Originally posted by kwgoodwin
    I just find it rather boring to play those that time out their games...
    Dont play them.
  13. 21 Mar '08 07:58
    Originally posted by eagleeye222001
    Basically you think that the rating change from the result of a game should be based on your opponents rating right before the game starts and not when it ends, right?

    Let's pretend that we change the rating system to work as described above. What happens when I start a game against a 1600 but when I win, he/she is a 1800? Is it fair now that I o ...[text shortened]... day time controls with no timebank.

    Its your choice who you play or who you possibly play.
    Maybe take the tournament entry rating?
  14. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    21 Mar '08 11:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kwgoodwin
    I'm always surprised by the folks that can keep hundreds of active games. I have one opponent with 887 current games. Is there anyway to see who has the most?

    Has RHP ever thought of limiting the number of active games as too often those with 500+ games tend to time out rather than actually play?
    You have alot in progress too! I have 20 games; 6 of which are 21 days, 5 are 7 days; 2 are PTC....really 6-7 'fast' games...and sometimes I am still overwhelmed! I.E. In the 2008 Championship I am down to 7-8 days of time left! They're too fast!!!
  15. 21 Mar '08 11:53
    Originally posted by diskamyl
    I lost around 40 points because of that Heng guy. He was 1800 at the time when I got a piece up, and when he finally resigned, he was somewhere around 800, and I lost points eventhough I won.

    I think it is reasonable and even necessary for RHP to limit maximum games.
    They do, non subs only get six.